"Dale Eastman" wrote in message
k.net...


digitalmaster wrote:
"Dale Eastman" wrote in message
nk.net...


wrote:


Dale Eastman wrote:



... how much horsepower (fuel consumed) to cover the 176 miles?

Take it away Nick.


Foist, the question might be "how many horsepower-HOURS" of energy?"

And how much force times 176 miles?

Nick


Yes. That is the question required for a starting point...

And I dunno the answer.

I do know that the bigger tractors have 450+ horses available. We need a
farmer to give us (more like you ) some actual fuel consumption
figures.


I saw a show on discovery channel about the worlds largest tractors.IIRC
they used about 1 gallon per acre for one pass plowing.

Did you catch the width of the plow. Makes a little difference.

30' wide is approx.:
176/640 = .275 miles per acre.

Where 176 is the number of passes (1 mile each) with a 30' wide plow to
cover 640 acres (1 mi. sq.).

1 gallon per acre equals 1 gallon per .275 miles.
1/.275 = 3.64 gallons per mile (not miles per gallon).

Now I'll post this and then likely find somebody beat me to the punch.

Why assume a 30' plow? the tractors I saw would pull a 30 foot plow apart in
short order.There is such a thing as economy of scale.Just because someone
said 30 foot plow does not mean it has to be.Run the numbers with a 20 foot
and you will get even less efficiency.

Howdy again Dale:
Algae is grown in what is called a raceway for large systems, but for
small systems
you can use bags, or tanks, but have more dark area than light area, or you
can grow
tubular reactors, which would be my choice for growing in a small system.
Here
is a link that you my want to check out to see what such a system might look
like.
http://www.variconaqua.com/bioreactors.htm
http://www.irccm.de/greenhouse/project.html

Photo of a large system can be seen he
http://www.scripps.edu/newsandviews/...127/algae.html

And this is a good read:
http://www.unh.edu/p2/biodiesel/article_alge.html

Another good read; Microreactor:
http://oregonstate.edu/dept/ncs/news...roreactors.htm
http://www.capitalpress.info/print.a...56&TM=52092.43


--

SeeYaa Harbin Osteen KG6URO

!sdohtem noitpyrcne devorppa-tnemnrevog troppus I
-






"Dale Eastman" wrote in message
news
Thank you. The links give me something to read...

And a little more hope in Peak Oil.

Harbin Osteen wrote:

Hi Dale:
This site claims 2641 gallons per hector:
http://www.oilgae.com/algae/oil/yield/yield.html

Gallons of Oil per Acre per Year

Corn . . . . . . . 18

Soybeans . . . .48

Safflower. . . . . 83

Sunflower . . . 102

Rapeseed. . . 127

Oil Palm . . . . 635

Micro Algae . .5000-15000:
http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directo...from_Algae_Oil
The highest yield feedstock for biodiesel is hydroponic algae, which can
produce 250 times the amount per acre as soybeans.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biodiesel

Micro algaes present the best option for producing Bio Fuel such as
biodiesel in quantities sufficient to completely replace petroleum. While
traditional crops have yields of around 50-150 gallons of biodiesel per
acre per year, algaes can yield 5,000-20,000 gallons per acre per year.
http://www.solaroof.org/wiki/SolaRoof/MassAlgaeCulture

a.. Different algae species produce different amounts of oil. Some algae
( diatoms for instance) produce up to 50% oil by weight.
http://www.castoroil.in/reference/pl...sel_algae.html

a.. Soybean: 40 to 50 US gal/acre (40 to 50 m³/km²)
b.. Rapeseed: 110 to 145 US gal/acre (100 to 140 m³/km²)
c.. Mustard: 140 US gal/acre (130 m³/km²)
d.. Jatropha: 175 US gal/acre (160 m³/km²)
e.. Palm oil: 650 US gal/acre (610 m³/km²) [2]
f.. Algae: 10,000 to 20,000 US gal/acre (10,000 to 20,000 m³/km²)
http://www.biodieseltechnologiesindi...elsources.html

These are just a few sites, and I'm sure there are some more detailed
sites out there.


--
Anybody answering this post consents to having their replies posted on my
website.
(Not that I need your consent since you post to public domain.)

Harbin Osteen wrote:

Howdy again Dale:

Please don't top-post.

Your answer seemed interesting but misplaced.

Graham

digitalmaster wrote:


... how much horsepower (fuel consumed) to cover the 176 miles?

Take it away Nick.


Foist, the question might be "how many horsepower-HOURS" of energy?"

And how much force times 176 miles?

Nick


Yes. That is the question required for a starting point...

And I dunno the answer.

I do know that the bigger tractors have 450+ horses available. We need a
farmer to give us (more like you ) some actual fuel consumption
figures.


I saw a show on discovery channel about the worlds largest tractors.IIRC
they used about 1 gallon per acre for one pass plowing.

Did you catch the width of the plow. Makes a little difference.

30' wide is approx.:
176/640 = .275 miles per acre.

Where 176 is the number of passes (1 mile each) with a 30' wide plow to
cover 640 acres (1 mi. sq.).

1 gallon per acre equals 1 gallon per .275 miles.
1/.275 = 3.64 gallons per mile (not miles per gallon).

Now I'll post this and then likely find somebody beat me to the punch.


Why assume a 30' plow?

'Cuz I used to deliver farm equipment to agricultural implement
dealers and I remember 30' disk plows being delivered...
No other reason than that's the number I remember.

And those 48,000 pound tractors with the 450+ h.p. engines. Delivered
a few of them too.

the tractors I saw would pull a 30 foot plow apart in
short order.There is such a thing as economy of scale.Just because someone
said 30 foot plow does not mean it has to be.Run the numbers with a 20 foot
and you will get even less efficiency.

Yep.

Will check them out. Thanks. Those other links were interesting. I
learned of peak oil at least 3 years ago. It was quite depressing.
This algae thing looks like about the only thing that has a chance of
keeping up with present demand without requiring 3 million square
miles of fuel crops.

Harbin Osteen wrote:

Howdy again Dale:
Algae is grown in what is called a raceway for large systems, but for
small systems
you can use bags, or tanks, but have more dark area than light area, or you
can grow
tubular reactors, which would be my choice for growing in a small system.
Here
is a link that you my want to check out to see what such a system might look
like.
http://www.variconaqua.com/bioreactors.htm
http://www.irccm.de/greenhouse/project.html

Photo of a large system can be seen he
http://www.scripps.edu/newsandviews/...127/algae.html

And this is a good read:
http://www.unh.edu/p2/biodiesel/article_alge.html

Another good read; Microreactor:
http://oregonstate.edu/dept/ncs/news...roreactors.htm
http://www.capitalpress.info/print.a...56&TM=52092.43



--
Anybody answering this post consents to having their replies posted on
my website.
(Not that I need your consent since you post to public domain.)

digitalmaster wrote:


I saw a show on discovery channel about the worlds largest tractors.IIRC
they used about 1 gallon per acre for one pass plowing.

Did you catch the width of the plow. Makes a little difference.

30' wide is approx.:
176/640 = .275 miles per acre.

Where 176 is the number of passes (1 mile each) with a 30' wide plow to
cover 640 acres (1 mi. sq.).

1 gallon per acre equals 1 gallon per .275 miles.
1/.275 = 3.64 gallons per mile (not miles per gallon).

Now I'll post this and then likely find somebody beat me to the punch.


Why assume a 30' plow? the tractors I saw would pull a 30 foot plow apart in
short order.There is such a thing as economy of scale.Just because someone
said 30 foot plow does not mean it has to be.Run the numbers with a 20 foot
and you will get even less efficiency.


For my own edification, shared:

20' wide
264/640 = .4125 miles per acre.

Where 264 is the number of passes (1 mile each) with a 20' wide plow
to cover 640 acres (1 mi. sq.).

1 gallon per acre equals 1 gallon per .4125 miles.
1/.4125 = 2.42 gallons per mile (not miles per gallon).

Counter- intuitive answer because the consumption was labeled as 1
gallon per acre. More distance is traveled with a narrower plow to
cover the same acre (area).

On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 00:59:19 GMT, Dale Eastman
wrote:

Counter- intuitive answer because the consumption was labeled as 1
gallon per acre. More distance is traveled with a narrower plow to
cover the same acre (area).

Presumably a narrower plow will require less horsepower however, which
will equate to a lower gph burn rate.

Wayne.B wrote:
On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 00:59:19 GMT, Dale Eastman
wrote:


Counter- intuitive answer because the consumption was labeled as 1
gallon per acre. More distance is traveled with a narrower plow to
cover the same acre (area).


Presumably a narrower plow will require less horsepower however, which
will equate to a lower gph burn rate.


Presumably, Yes.
But unprovable.
Time and speed are not known.
Actual force required is not known.

The only figure we have is fuel consumption at 1 gallon per acre.

That means:
2.42 gallons per mile with 20' plow;
3.64 gallons per mile with 30' plow.

Per Eeyo
On my canal trips btw I've lost quite a bit of weight from running around,
working locks and the like and it feels great.

I recently met an old windsurfing acquaintance. After he quit windsurfing, he
got *huge* - as in life-threateningly obese.

When I saw him last week, he looked great. Said he'd lost over 60 pounds.

The story is that before he was the owner of a data entry operation and never
got any exercise at all.

After data entry became a thing of the past, he eased into office
equipment/furnitu a job where a good bit of physical activity is involved.

He's not one to exercise for it's own sake... and he claims he didn't diet. It
was just the activity in the new job that made the diff.

Seems to support what I heard a long time ago: your body has a built-in appetite
regulating mechanism that makes you just the right amount of hungry - except
that it gets out of calibration without a certain minimum amount of physical
exercise.
--
PeteCresswell

"(PeteCresswell)" wrote:

Per Eeyo
On my canal trips btw I've lost quite a bit of weight from running around,
working locks and the like and it feels great.

I recently met an old windsurfing acquaintance. After he quit windsurfing, he
got *huge* - as in life-threateningly obese.

When I saw him last week, he looked great. Said he'd lost over 60 pounds.

The story is that before he was the owner of a data entry operation and never
got any exercise at all.

After data entry became a thing of the past, he eased into office
equipment/furnitu a job where a good bit of physical activity is involved.

He's not one to exercise for it's own sake... and he claims he didn't diet. It
was just the activity in the new job that made the diff.

Seems to support what I heard a long time ago: your body has a built-in appetite
regulating mechanism that makes you just the right amount of hungry - except
that it gets out of calibration without a certain minimum amount of physical
exercise.

Sounds like a good explanation to me.

Shame that kids of school age are getting obese through being driven to school and
back and the absence of any physical games in the curriculum these days.

Graham